Jump to content


Does HB 183 allow for carrying 2 handguns?

Started by C0untZer0 , Yesterday, 06:43 AM

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,737 posts
    • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted Yesterday, 06:43 AM

I re-read amendment 5 and it says "Firearm" singular...

If this has been talked about before, I'm sorry, but some of the threads on 183 got so so long I couldn't read through all of them.
‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.‘
- C. S. Lewis

#2 TTIN

    si vis pacem, para bellum

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,244 posts
    • Joined: 10-February 06

Posted Yesterday, 12:56 PM

I read nothing to indicate the number of weapons,but then again,I ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Patrick Henry: "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense".

"God made men,but Colt made them equals"

"Guns don't kill people..husbands who come home early do" -Larry The Cable Guy

"Illinois: Will the Defendant Please Rise?"

"si vis pacem, para bellum"

#3 handyflyer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts
    • Joined: 03-May 13

Posted Yesterday, 01:23 PM

I saw nothing on number of firearms either.
NRA, ISRA, all around cool guy

#4 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 734 posts
    • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted Yesterday, 01:54 PM

There is no specific number you can not carry.

This was debates on the floor, some representatives asked how may firearms law enforcement were allowed to carry.

The misinformed representative thought law enforcement officers could only carry one firearm and that other citizens should be limited to one firearm as well.
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#5 blazzinbird

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,473 posts
    • Joined: 22-February 13

Posted Yesterday, 04:31 PM

Why do you need more than 1? You trying to make up for a lack of something?

Lol
Shall issue with preemption

#6 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,285 posts
    • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted Yesterday, 04:34 PM

it does use the singular in a least a few places. I don't know if that is meaningful or not.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#7 handyflyer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts
    • Joined: 03-May 13

Posted Yesterday, 04:37 PM

A wise man said " two is one and one is none."
NRA, ISRA, all around cool guy

#8 jlowrie

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 353 posts
    • Joined: 26-February 12

Posted Yesterday, 11:06 PM

I just though he wanted to do it to tick off Arroyo.
The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

#9 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,759 posts
    • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted Yesterday, 11:35 PM

If you carry one firearm, and then you carry one more firearm, I don't see a problem unless you try to redefine the meaning of firearm.

I'm not a lawyer but if I was I think I'd be pretty good at it, lol.
Have all boated who fish? Have all boated who fish?

#10 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,285 posts
    • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted Today, 05:00 AM

It has occurred to me that the meat of the bill is the issuance of a license that permits the licensee to carry a firearm.

The bill does not use the term "firearms". It specifically uses the singular term "firearm".

I would not want to be the test case on this one either. No doubt there will be a test case. The problem is that if the court finds that he is not within the confines of what the license grants him permission to do, he is not covered by the license and the charge would be AgUUW.

There is another interesting angle to this that occurred to me as well. The license permits the licensee to carry a concealed handgun loaded or unloaded. Is an unloaded handgun in a case concealed? If so it would be covered by the license. So does this mean you can't carry a loaded gun in your pocket under the terms of the license while you have an unloaded and encased handgun on you as well?
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#11 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,737 posts
    • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted Today, 05:05 AM

I think an unloaded handgun in a case is transporting a firearm.
‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.‘
- C. S. Lewis

#12 lockman

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,188 posts
    • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted Today, 05:42 AM

If the word "firearm" were replaced with "firearms", would you be required to carry more than one?

I believe there would be a legal distinction only if both were specifically referenced, "firearm(s)" or "firearm or firearms".
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF

#13 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,106 posts
    • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted Today, 07:56 AM

View Postblazzinbird, on 18 June 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Why do you need more than 1? You trying to make up for a lack of something?



Of course!

A lack of armed cops who show up in 10 seconds :)
The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#14 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,285 posts
    • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted Today, 06:23 PM

View Postlockman, on 19 June 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

If the word "firearm" were replaced with "firearms", would you be required to carry more than one?

I believe there would be a legal distinction only if both were specifically referenced, "firearm(s)" or "firearm or firearms".

The thing is it is ambiguous and if it ever becomes law someone will get jacked up by it until the courts decide what it means. just like dozens of other provisions of this abomination.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#15 joybulb

  • Members
  • 9 posts
    • Joined: 01-May 13

Posted Today, 08:38 PM

Ambiguity is king in Illinois, I would stick with 1 firearm if the bill ever goes into effect.
https://www.facebook...gunsgunsgunsil/

#16 03rev

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 204 posts
    • Joined: 21-December 12

Posted Today, 08:42 PM

Im still trying to figure out why anyone would want to carry more than one. Tomorrow I'll go over to davenport and try it out just so I can see what its all about.  Dual 1911's :laugh:

#17 vezpa

    JEDI Master, slayer of Siths.

  • Members
  • 3,054 posts
    • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted Today, 09:31 PM

The person who gets arrested legally carrying 2 guns on their ccw license is going to get paid.......... like Lottery PAID.

.

Edited by vezpa, Today, 09:32 PM.

What just happened?

#18 dorvinion

    Still living too close to the Iron Curtain

  • Members
  • 2,318 posts
    • Joined: 10-March 05

Posted Today, 09:39 PM

That which is not prohibited is permitted.

I don't recall seeing it stated anywhere "a licensee shall not carry more than one concealed handgun on or about his person"
Did you ever notice that when you blow in a dog's face, he gets mad at you,
but when you take him for a car ride, he sticks his head out the window?

#19 GlockShooter

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,163 posts
    • Joined: 12-March 05

Posted Today, 10:08 PM

View Postdorvinion, on 19 June 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

That which is not prohibited is permitted.

I don't recall seeing it stated anywhere "a licensee shall not carry more than one concealed handgun on or about his person"
This man speaks the truth.

I haven't read anything stating a BUG is not allowed.
Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.
abolt243
Back to Illinois Right to Carry


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. IllinoisCarry.com
  2. → Right to Carry
  3. → Illinois Right to Carry
  4. Privacy Policy